Wow! Not as bad as I thought. But, I wasn't the first to suggest Austin was eight times larger than Denton. Never-the-less, late night ridership will be proportionally just as bad, which is the point I've been making over three replies now. So far, not one has counter argued that point successfully.

1/8 was me. I was actually referring to city population, not county population (very roughly, Austin 800,000 vs. Denton ~100,000). Despite the name, DCTA appears to only operate in 3 cities (Denton and two smaller ones), not throughout the entirety of Denton (the county). Like Capmetro operates in member cities (Austin, Leander, etc.) not everywhere in Travis County.

I will readily admit that true late-night service may not be economically viable (though I'm not sure this is a datapoint that proves it).

I'm also not sure what noise regulations Capmetro operates under. When they implemented the commuter rail, those freight runs shifted later into the night, and those seem much louder to me (and go on for much longer) than the commuter trains (disclaimer, I live a few blocks over from the tracks).

1/8 was me. I was actually referring to city population, not county population (very roughly, Austin 800,000 vs. Denton ~100,000). Despite the name, DCTA appears to only operate in 3 cities (Denton and two smaller ones), not throughout the entirety of Denton (the county). Like Capmetro operates in member cities (Austin, Leander, etc.) not everywhere in Travis County.

I will readily admit that true late-night service may not be economically viable (though I'm not sure this is a datapoint that proves it).

I'm also not sure what noise regulations Capmetro operates under. When they implemented the commuter rail, those freight runs shifted later into the night, and those seem much louder to me (and go on for much longer) than the commuter trains (disclaimer, I live a few blocks over from the tracks).

DCTA must be doing very well relative to Cap Metro, 1400 average daily riders vs 2,400, not bad for a county with one-eight the population

I wonder how much of that is due to having more rolling stock. Despite having less track (and a smaller population), the DCTA train has 11 DMUs (and I think Capmetro has 6?). At peak times the Red Line seems to be approaching a saturation point (I've certainly seen it go by with standing-room-only during the afternoon commute). With twice the number of cars (or cars twice as large) I'm pretty confident that CapMetro could increase ridership with commuters that just don't want to stand for 45 minutes, or who worry about not having room for them one day.

Increase it enough to pay for it, who knows (probably not, but at this point it seems to be arguing over 8% farebox recovery vs. 6%, ie lost in the noise)? But paying for it wasn't really what I was addressing in the first place, I was addressing M1EK's implication that the red line had peaked in demand and couldn't be increased (by any means).

I will readily admit that true late-night service may not be economically viable (though I'm not sure this is a datapoint that proves it).

I'm also not sure what noise regulations Capmetro operates under. When they implemented the commuter rail, those freight runs shifted later into the night, and those seem much louder to me (and go on for much longer) than the commuter trains (disclaimer, I live a few blocks over from the tracks).

The freight trains pre-existed commuter rail and are not considered an increase in services. Noise regulations only apply to new services, like commuter rail.

Briefly:
Federal Regulations
For different land uses, there are different noise criteria for impacts.
NAC Leq(h), dBA* = Description of Land Use

57 (Exterior) = Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the perservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
67 (Exterior) = Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
72 (Exterior) = Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in the other categories.
---- = Undeveloped Lands.
52 (Interior) = Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums.

Illinois Noise Abatement Goals
Noise impacts trigger a noise abatement evaluation. The noise abatement design must meet IDOTs feasible and reasonable criteria. The noise abatement option is determined to be feasible if it achieves at least an 8-dBA traffic noise reduction. A noise abatement option must also be economically reasonable. This means that the noise abatement design does not cost more than $24,000 per benefited receptor. For example, a noise wall benefiting 10 residences at a cost of $240,000 is considered economically reasonable.

Applying this to CapMetro examples....
Train vehicle noise sources:
• Diesel exhaust
• Cooling fans
• Wheel/rail contact
• Horns (primary source of noise) required to be a minimum of 110 db by law.
Note: Horns must be blown at every intersection, usually in the following pattern: 2 long blasts, 1 short blip, and another long blast.

That's the reason why so many new passenger train lines seriously look at implementing quiet zones. Eliminating the need to blow the horn at intersections eliminates most of the noise receptors requiring abatements.

For example in Fort Worth for their TexRail project, according to their DEIS, approximately 70 percent of the noise impacts are due to the sounding of train horns at the numerous at-grade crossings along the alignment and the remaining impacts are due to the train operation.

Yeah, the Red Line in Austin ends in Leander, so I guess you gotta add Williamson CO's 400 plus thousand to the total for Austin. About the Dallas line going up to Denton, my understanding is that one of the two Carrollton stations south of Denton, the one with the park and ride, boards a boatload of regular commuters on a daily basis headed down into Dallas. That is probably the bulk of the ridership out of Denton CO at this point, but I have not seen a station by station breakdown. It is a new service and is likely to grow because, as has been pointed out, it operates frequently throughout the day and actually connects to a widespread rail system in the Dallas area. THe ridership out of Denton will probably grow too. I am curious as to what numbers are being generated out of the Denton terminus?

Thanks for posting that link. It confirms much of what I wrote earlier. 2 dedicated lanes for tracks and 2 traffic lanes for at least a mile, more likely for more than 4 miles. Where the corridor was too tight for even that, 2 dedicated lanes for tracks and just one traffic lane.

The 2000 plan did not send light rail north of Airport, turning instead onto the rail corridor. If the light rail line continued on Lamar north of Airport, Lamar would need to be 20 feet wider for 2 additional traffic lanes with bike lanes, or 10 feet wider without the bike lanes. That's 78 or 68 feet between stations, and 93 or 83 feet at island platform stations. I don't see how there could be 4 lanes of traffic on Lamar south of Airport. And some sort of time or physical separation between light rail and commuter rail would be required to be built at the train corridor

So, traffic heading north of the couplet pair inn downtown Austin, which is effectively a 3 to 4 lane one way street is reduced to just 1 northbound lane. If you think traffic backs up now, imagine how much worse it would have been using this plan. Half the existing traffic on the corridor would have to disappear, reroute, or take the train.

I wonder how much of that is due to having more rolling stock. Despite having less track (and a smaller population), the DCTA train has 11 DMUs (and I think Capmetro has 6?). At peak times the Red Line seems to be approaching a saturation point (I've certainly seen it go by with standing-room-only during the afternoon commute). With twice the number of cars (or cars twice as large) I'm pretty confident that CapMetro could increase ridership with commuters that just don't want to stand for 45 minutes, or who worry about not having room for them one day.

Increase it enough to pay for it, who knows (probably not, but at this point it seems to be arguing over 8% farebox recovery vs. 6%, ie lost in the noise)? But paying for it wasn't really what I was addressing in the first place, I was addressing M1EK's implication that the red line had peaked in demand and couldn't be increased (by any means).

Don't know where you got the idea that I said it had peaked. It's peaked as much as we can afford to run for now - if we ran it at light rail frequency during daylight hours, we might eke out 5,000 boardings/day within a few years. That still sucks compared to even bad light rail lines.

Great, that means they found a way to keep four lanes open to traffic along with 22-23 feet for rail north of the Triangle. So that means just around 1 mile long two lanes with rail for traffic along "The Drag". Better than what I initially thought.

Yeah, the Red Line in Austin ends in Leander, so I guess you gotta add Williamson CO's 400 plus thousand to the total for Austin. About the Dallas line going up to Denton, my understanding is that one of the two Carrollton stations south of Denton, the one with the park and ride, boards a boatload of regular commuters on a daily basis headed down into Dallas. That is probably the bulk of the ridership out of Denton CO at this point, but I have not seen a station by station breakdown. It is a new service and is likely to grow because, as has been pointed out, it operates frequently throughout the day and actually connects to a widespread rail system in the Dallas area. THe ridership out of Denton will probably grow too. I am curious as to what numbers are being generated out of the Denton terminus?

DCTA does give out station by station breakdown on ridership. I didn't want to bore everyone in the Austin threads with it. Just check out their Board packet items - I know the January 2013 Board packet includes December 2012 ridership stats.http://www.dcta.net/images/stories/p...%20meeting.pdf
December 2012
Downtown Denton 8,103
Medpark 3,212
Highland Village/Lewisville Lake 2,302
Old Town Lewisville 2,252
Hebron 2,473
Trinity Mills (Carrollton/DART) 12,132
Some math:
8,103 / 30,474 = 26.5% board at Downtown Denton
12,132 / 30,374 = 39.8% board at Trinity Mills
There's both terminus for you.

"all the time" is a coverage statement, and basically true. "frequently" would be a statement on frequency, which is still low.

So if it ran only 3 times per day (equally spaced at 6 AM, Noon, and 6 PM), it would still run "all the time" in your estimation, just not "frequently"? Frequency is a subset of coverage (necessary for, but not sufficient).

Quote:

Originally Posted by M1EK

"
Forget that, though, even; the reason it should be compared to light rail lines is because it killed our best possible light rail line.

Opportunity cost. Do you speak it?

No, it didn't. Light rail (at least from Capitol Metro) died in 2000. It passed in the city of Austin, and failed in the outer CapMetro suburbs. In the years since, Austin has grown by X%, and the outer suburbs have grown by ~2X%. Suburbanites aren't going to want to pay for something that they don't think benefits them (it actually does in reduced congestion, etc., but that's not how they view it). So they're never going to vote for it (and they now outnumber those in the urban area even more than before). Any future CapMetro initiative for (non-commuter) rail is basically doomed to failure via demographics. The only chance for urban rail is from the city of Austin directly, where fewer in the suburbs get to vote on it (though it's far from a sure thing to pass, since there's plenty of sub-urb within city limits).

Forget that, though, even; the reason it should be compared to light rail lines is because it killed our best possible light rail line.

That best possible light rail line had already been killed by the 2000 referendum. I'll agree the route may be the best transit route, but I don't agree the 2000 light rail plans adequately addressed vehicle traffic in the corridor, therefore that wasn't the best possible light rail line for Austin.

They should have bitten the bullet and recommended elevating the light rail tracks though "The Drag", maintaining as many vehicles lanes as possible on the various streets. DART has many miles of elevated tracks adjacent and over streets; it's not a technically impossible task, just expensive. That would have been the best light rail line possible.

A small Vancouver automated style Skytrain would have been even better and even more expensive. Honolulu picked this style of train over its narrow streets as well. Those weren't included in the Austin's 2000 light rail plan.

Instead we got a proposal to eliminate two to three traffic lanes on Guadalupe or Lamar, rerouting all traffic with one-way permanent detours in the Triangle area, creating a traffic nightmare. Most on street parking, if not all, was going to be eliminated. Businesses requiring on street parking probably would fail without them, if they hadn't already failed from 2 years or more of construction at their front doors. You don't do something to please the few, you should plan to do something that pleases the many. I wouldn't be very proud of the 2000 light rail plan.

While I don't doubt someone proposed/wanted Lamar widened in that area, I wonder how much the street profiles in those documents represent completed engineering plans vs. simply neighborhood input (a lot in those neighborhood plans simply represents "wishes" from the neighborhoods without full vetting).
For instance, it details the intersecton of Lamar and Koening. Which is currently 4 travel lanes, 1 turn lane, and sidewalks immediately adjacent to the travel lanes. While that document proposes 4 travel lanes, 2 left turn lanes, 2 light rail lanes, boarding platforms, 2 bike lanes, green buffer area with trees, then sidewalks. That's _significantly_ wider than the current road cross section. Obviously I haven't been out there with a tape measure, and a couple feet could probably be gained with lane diets on the existing lanes, but I really doubt that so much could be squeezed in without eminent domain acquisition of adjacent properties (in particular the gas station at that intersection seems to be really close to the existing roadway).

That's _significantly_ wider than the current road cross section. Obviously I haven't been out there with a tape measure, and a couple feet could probably be gained with lane diets on the existing lanes, but I really doubt that so much could be squeezed in without eminent domain acquisition of adjacent properties (in particular the gas station at that intersection seems to be really close to the existing roadway).

I thought Secret Agent Man wrote widening the road. That usually means eminent domain acquisitions for the widened right-of-way for the property owners unwilling to negotiate a fair deal.

I thought Secret Agent Man wrote widening the road. That usually means eminent domain acquisitions for the widened right-of-way for the property owners unwilling to negotiate a fair deal.

Not necessarily, it depends on how wide the existing right-of-way is. For instance, on Burnet north of 183 the existing right-of-way is much wider than the current roadway (you can sort of see this in how far back all of the businesses and parking lots are set). So additional lanes/bike lanes/transit could be added there in the existing profile.

But yeah, on Lamar south of 183 any additional widening/lanes are probably going to require acquisition/eminent domain. Which both ups the price a bunch and slows down the build process.

Elevating a track through a few hard sections might make sense. Certainly that has to be cheaper than burying it. But I worry about creating dead zones under the tracks and psychologic barriers that pedestrians won't cross...particularly in an area of town where we want heavy pedestrian traffic and street life. Maybe there's a way to do this well - but, for example, the elevated freeways are just a disaster in this town - every one of them. I'd worry that elevated rail would have similar impact.

Elevating a track through a few hard sections might make sense. Certainly that has to be cheaper than burying it. But I worry about creating dead zones under the tracks and psychologic barriers that pedestrians won't cross...particularly in an area of town where we want heavy pedestrian traffic and street life. Maybe there's a way to do this well - but, for example, the elevated freeways are just a disaster in this town - every one of them. I'd worry that elevated rail would have similar impact.

Certainly that's a consideration, but would elevated tracks in, for instance, Guadalupe in the drag really stop people from crossing in that area? Also there's probably a difference between 2 transit lines and 6 (or more) highway lanes (plus shoulders).
Have elevated transit lines in other large cities created similar psychological barriers?

You know weekend ridership would be much higher if they could run the trains till 3 a.m. instead of midnight. Anybody who goes out Downtown will not leave at 12, majority leave when the bars and clubs close. I know people who live in Cedar Park who would use the train instead of driving DT to go out but that they don't because it stops service so early.